Zantel 12.02.10

Redding goes to great lengths to distinguish whistle-blowing and boat-rocker in his article. He also shows how as instructors we perpetuate the “go along” mentality in our classrooms and lectures. In what ways can we become more self-reflexive to maintain a checks and balance to decrease this from happening? How can we empower our students to be forthcoming with their ideas and consciousness-raising in class and in their careers? Should we as scholars accept this as part of our responsibility or not?

Jones--Questions

I agree with many of my classmates—the Redding “Rocking Boats” essay was awesome. I don’t mean to sound repetitive, but I would also like to encourage us to think about the cross-sections of pedagogy and research that this readings point us toward. Redding gives us 2 clear recommendations for how to legitimize and open the door for organizational dissent to students in our classrooms: engage in consciousness-raising and point out that there are a multitude of options for organizational dissent.
(1) Are these recommendations cross-applicable to research endeavors? How can our perspectives and methods be enriched by these recommendations? Are there are other Redding also ppointmore ‘appropriate’ ways of introducing dissent into research?
Redding also points out that instructors are culpable in reinforcing the dominant organizational paradigm “in two ways: what we sometimes say (in our textbooks, lectures, syllabi, classroom assignments) and what we leave out” (p. 248). I conceptualized this as pointing toward Burke’s discussion of selection and deflection in definitions, communication, and language. Cronen offers five different characteristics of “practical theory” (see p. 231-238).
(2) Looking at Cronen’s different characteristics, what threads of selection and deflection do you see?

Sara's Questions - 12/2

Redding's (1985) article Rocking Boats, Blowing Whistles, and Teaching Speech Communication is an instant classic that still resonates with a 2010 audience. It's like a fine wine that only gets better with age paired with the chic little black dress that never goes out of style. It was helpful for me to see some of the same issues that Redding raises, being addressed by Deetz (1994) 10-years later when he masterfully articulates the constitutive approach to communication studies as a discipline. Both scholars make similar arguments. Our basic texts are whack. Our journals are "uneven at best" (Deetz, 1994, p. 565). And the normative approach influences not only how we conduct ourselves as scholars, but also how we conduct ourselves in the courses that we teach. Communicating dissensus is missing from both a critic and citizen perspective. So with these ideas in mind I pose the following questions:

1.) One of the main purposes of this seminar is to examine multiple perspectives of organizational communication. How will you use the knowledge that you have gained in the course in both your instructional and scholarly pursuits?

2.) Do you see yourself as a possible whistle-blower or boat-rocker?

Question 12-2-10 Jeff Johnson

Redding's notion of tolerance level in the expression of dissent (be it internal or external) alligned with the "bad managerial decisions" is illuminating, however, in its presented from does little to help the field or organizational practitioners. Undoubtedly, illegal or unethical decisions do occur in organizations. I would argue, however, the vast preponderence of "bad decisions" are judgement calls on optimal strategic direction. Expressing some dissent is expected (if not required) in organizations, however, too much, as Redding explicates, can limit career opportunities. How do you believe we can better prepare students to combine the social and personal ramifications (both positive and negative) of dissent in organizations?

And Next? - Marlina Davidson

I really enjoyed the readings for this week. Although all three articles were written over 15 years ago I believe the themes still resonate today. My questions focus on how we can continue to fight for the ideals that these authors describe in their articles.

Cronen’s (1995) suggests that we should depart from studies that that contribute to traditional
theory and move more toward the practice of “practical theory.” At the end of the article Cronen states “The use of a practical theory not only should lead to enhanced abilities for those we study or with whom we consult but should also enrich us as theorists and practitioners” (p. 237). What can we do as researchers and consumers of this research to make sure our studies as a discipline do this? How do we know when we’re not following the guidelines of practical theory?

Cronen’s article closely related to Redding’s (1985) article on rocking boats and blowing whistles. I really appreciated how this article related to us as teachers because I believe we should just be trying to rock the boat through our research but we should also be doing it in the classroom.

I believe being a graduate student teaching and eventually a tenured-track faculty member is a difficult position to be in when you’re trying to “rock the boat” in the classroom. What do you believe are ways that we can as non-tenured faculty to create this open environment for our students and be “role-models” as Redding describes it?

After reading Redding’s article I question whether I have the expertise to be a role-model for my students or to teach proper boat-rocking in the classroom. How do you believe we can ensure that as teachers we are not hurting our students later in their lives? Redding identifies other ways of expressing dissent and other nonconformist views in his article that we can be teaching as well as simply being consciousness-raisers. I’ve been told many times though that as non-tenured faculty you stay away from boat-rocking and wait until you’ve been tenured. How do you think we can teach our students this skill if we are being told not to rock the boat?

Zhou's question 12.2

After reading all those three pieces this week, I kept thinking about one thing: what does the communication as a discipline mean to our teachers, to our students and to our society.

Just like what Deetz said in his article, as a discipline, communication is still young. It is in its adolescence that will become an adult when it is needed. And it's also true that if we want to be identified by others, we need to prove ourselves as useful and productive to the world. But as the "career education" overwhelms nowadays, what should our communication teachers keep in mind when teaching our students? Should we put “knowledge” first or "fitting into the career in the future" first as our motive during teaching process?

Dongjing's Question

I remembered I read Deetz's piece last year. Second reading brings me some new insights. Especially the Figure on Communication and Information Orientation.In addition, he pointed out communication disciplines in three senses, which is very important to me.Discipline 1 is better referred to as an academic unit. Discipline 2 displays a world organized around topical interests. Discipline 3 displays a world organized around competing modes of explanation. But scholars of communication departments most often have though of us as the field of communication studies (discipline 2) rather than as a discipline 3. Is the situation in Communication Department changed as this was published in 1994?

I am curious, I want to ask all the people in class.

How do you present organizational communication as a discipline in three sentences to the public?

What are the social contributions constitute Organizational Communication?